Network Computing is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

BuzzCut Debate: Microsoft's Newfound 'Openness'

Point: Be Skeptical, but Don't Dismiss It

Don MacVittie writes:
Microsoft recently announced changes to its licensing policies that supposedly will give end users, corporations and ISVs (independent software vendors) more options and opportunities. But this is primarily a continuation of what Microsoft is best at: PR without substance. Microsoft's changes have three components:

Microsoft will "expose" nearly 300 new APIs for ISVs to use. The vendor's use of the term expose is telling. In reality, it is exposing nothing. These APIs have been around -- Microsoft is now going to document them. This will improve Microsoft's image to the courts, but hackers and ISVs have known about these APIs. Tons of Web pages document APIs that Microsoft doesn't officially support.

Microsoft will let resellers replace portions of its "middleware" with competing products. But once you've destroyed the competition, who cares if resellers can distribute competing products? Will your organization run out and replace Internet Explorer? Not likely. It has become the standard thanks to Microsoft's past practices, and there is no longer a value proposition in replacing it unless you are replacing your entire desktop. I will not be so unforgiving as to say that past practices predict future behavior, but I will say that current practices predict future behavior. Dell recently announced that its agreement with Microsoft means it won't offer Linux desktops, nor will it offer desktops without an OS. The style of the coercion may have changed, but the coercion has not.

With the release of Windows XP Service Pack 1, end users will be able to substitute some desktop middleware. But offering an option is nowhere near the same as offering a usable option. If your users can comprehend replacing Microsoft's bundled software, this may be the best of the three components. Of course, it will have little impact on the enterprise, but it's designed to make us feel hopeful. Let's see if end users benefit from removing those "critical system components" that are "an integral part of the Windows operating system."

Do I see any good coming out of this? Only that the behemoth is moving in a positive direction. Microsoft is reaching a point at which its executives will have to choose between working with the rest of the world to forward software development, and fighting the rest of the world and retarding the growth of the software industry. Microsoft execs aren't stupid, so I predict they'll play along. As a matter of fact, I believe one day Windows will be a Window Manager bundled with FreeBSD or a variant of the open-source software. Microsoft has experience with FreeBSD, so this option would void any claims that Microsoft holds a monopoly on operating systems, and would let the vendor keep its code proprietary. Most important, this option fragments an ever-growing Linux market.